정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles1) The Defendant did not recognize that the content of the writing written on the bulletin board of the website was false by believing that it is true. The Defendant posted the writing for the public interest, such as consumer's right to know, and there was no intention to slander or interfere with business. 2) The Defendant's act constitutes an act that does not violate social rules and constitutes a justifiable act.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of eight million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, whether or not an actor has recognized the false fact in the crime of violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) due to the publication of false facts, or not, should be determined by taking into account various objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s educational background, career, social status, background of publication, timing of publication, and anticipated ripple effect on the basis of the content and identity of the posted fact, the existence and content of the materials, and the source and awareness of the fact revealed by the Defendant. The intention of the crime includes not only the conclusive intention but also the so-called negligent intention, which is the intention to recognize it. Thus, the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) due to the publication of false facts also constitutes
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12430, Mar. 13, 2014). In addition, “the purpose of slandering a person” as prescribed by Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. requires an intention or purpose of a harm, and whether a person has an intention of slandering a person is the content and nature of the relevant timely fact, and the relevant fact.